We Must Build More Transit and Better Urbanism

Kate Wolford’s Star Tribune commentary calling for more transit was spot on. Our peer cities (Denver, Portland, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, hell, even St. Louis!) are ahead of us in terms of built rail miles, lines and stations. We must do more than catch up to remain an attractive metro area for all. Rail miles, lines and stations are important, but equally if not more so is the fabric of the city once people step off the platform. That is where we must set ourselves apart, and that requires something much more robust than station area planning. All hands must be on deck to create a competitive transit system with excellent urbanism around it.

Ms. Wolford argues young people considering a move to a metropolitan area seek better connectivity and an urban lifestyle. Absolutely. Let’s pretend for a moment that we find the political will and funding to accelerate the build-out of our system; to get the “connectivity.” What about the “urban lifestyle” we seek? People aren’t moving here just for the train. The connectivity provided by new transit systems valuable, but we leave half the value on the table if we don’t create a truly walkable environment once riders step off the platform. We must not just connect dots on a map but weave a fine web of urbanism that everyone can share and enjoy.

What does that mean? Here’s an example: I just spent a few days with my family in the Eastern Market neighborhood in Washington D.C. From our rowhome, we could walk down leafy, wide sidewalks, across mostly narrow streets with boldly marked crosswalks (some of which were marked with signs reminding drivers it was a $250 fine for not stopping for a pedestrian), crosswalk signals with pedestrian-friendly countdowns, past storefronts with lots of windows and doors, not a single surface parking lot, narrow curb cuts where they existed, It was easy to get not only to the Metro station but also throughout the entire neighborhood on foot. Sure, the Metro took us all over D.C., but we (my six- and two-year old) also were very comfortable in the city that lay outside the stations. Quite simply, it was walkable.

The Hiawatha Line continues to teach us lessons. Here we are approaching the ninth anniversary of service on the Hiawatha Line (Blue Line) and we’re just starting to address life beyond the platform. This year crosswalks on Hiawatha Avenue will be improved, a good first step, but ideally that occurs the day service begins. The private development market has certainly responded as expected, with plenty of residential and other development popping up near stations (and sometimes at the station itself), but ensuring a high-quality public realm has remained elusive. People stepping off the platform at Lake Street, for example, expect a better urban lifestyle, particularly a dozen years after approval of a plan by Peter Calthorpe. Moving forward, we must guarantee that when development happens the result will be to the high standards we should expect.

Granted, the federal funding process does not help. We have to do it all ourselves. We don’t even get trees. The City of St. Paul had to create a whole separate program for trees along the Central Corridor (Green Line). Who pays for these seemingly elemental things like trees, benches, enhanced sidewalks, crosswalks and better building facades? I think a large portion should come from property owners who benefit most from enhancements – those immediately adjacent to stations. In return, they can be allowed greater density to ensure profitability. Cities and the state should also ensure the right financing system is in place to pay for infrastructure and placemaking improvements even before private development occurs.

We are at an inflection point here in the Twin Cities. Not only must we build out transit system much faster, we must bring our urbanism “A-game” to the table. Connecting the dots is half the solution. I encourage all stakeholders, including planners, residents, the FTA, traffic engineers, local and state elected officials and of course McKnight to come together and ensure that entire neighborhoods, not just train stations, are ready for people the day service begins. Only when we insist upon nothing but the best urbanism will we be able to provide that elusive “urban lifestyle” and literal value we need to be a successful and attractive metro area in the future.

5 Responses to We Must Build More Transit and Better Urbanism

It’s not just the Governor. Rep. Jim Davnie and a cohort of Minneapolis DFLers are actively fighting against funding for transit. They have nearly destroyed the one good chance we’ve had in a long time to make real investment.

It’s absolutely disgusting that politicians who claim to care about the poor and people of color are actively opposing one of the most critical investments we can make for disadvantaged people. They claim concern over a “regressive” sales tax with apparently having never actually talked to a poor person. I have talked to low-income transit-dependent people and they are happy to pay a bit more sales tax to keep connectivity to their jobs.

It’s got to be more than just transit funding. The Hiawatha LRT has surpassed ridership projections, but that doesn’t mean it’s been a success in driving the type of land-use we’d expect out of a rail-served node or corridor (unfortunately). I think even more than solid funding and financing mechanisms in place from state and local sources, we need a dramatic shift in our land-use up front to kickstart everything.

I also think we need commitment from the capitol that not to fall into a myopia of sorts when spending $1B every 3-4 years on a major capital transit project whilst spending much, much more than that on continual road widening, ‘enhancement’, signalizing, flyovers, and maintenance. And then being surprised that without changes in land use/zoning/taxing that we don’t get the results of strong, walkable, transit-supported neighborhoods.

Minneapolis (and Saint Paul is probably worse) hasn’t been half-serious about up-zoning. Take a look at the zoning maps around (say) 46th St Station (link below), and within a couple of hundred yards of the station it’s still designated R1 or R1A.

The pedestrian overlay districts around 46th actively skirt around existing single family homes. If the overlay district extended further it would be (I think) easier to get variances for higher density.

I’m not advocating that people come in and knock everything down within a half-mile radius of the stations, but as it stands if you wanted to do higher density on a lot of sections closer to the station you’d have to get a variance.

The city talks a good game about this stuff, but in practice there’s a lot of political obstacles to incremental increases to density, doing more 4 story buildings instead of 2; or believing that people really don’t need parking spaces.

Empty LotsThe Virtues of Two-Rate Taxation: This blog has been quiet as of late, but I’ve got a new piece up over at Streets.MN about why taxing land and buildings at different rates would encourage more productive/efficient land uses in...

Mill City TimesThis Week's E-Newsletter: MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015 What do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult for each other?-- George Eliot[PHOTO] PIC OF THE WEEK - CHICAGO MILWAUKEE AND ST PAUL RAILROAD STATION FROM 19...

Net DensityTransit priorities: I have mixed feelings about streetcars. But if we’re going to pick on them, let’s do it for the right reasons, like the fact that they don’t have dedicated right of way. Yesterday...

MinneapolizeMr. Gorbachev, Tear Down That Wall: I have been thinking about the headline quote since I go the note that today marks the last day for public comment on the St. Paul Bike Plan.You can read about the plan and make a last minute comment...